California law (Proposition 209) prohibits the use of race as a factor in, among other things, admission to public universities. If this article in the New York Times Magazine by David Leonhardt is accurate, UCLA is violating California law. It’s doing so by preferring African-American applicants under the guise of preferring low income students. We know that these preferences are racially based because, according to Leonhardt, as low income black admittees rose last year, the overall number of low income admittees fell. In essence, low income African-Americans took slots that previously had gone to low income students of other races (mostly, it seems, Asians). As Leonhardt, a fan of what UCLA has done here, puts it: “Looking at the numbers, it’s hard not to conclude that race was a factor in this year’s admissions decisions.”
*******
In any case, it’s against the law to grant an income based preference to black students but not to students of other races — if that still matters.
Does it matter?
It is California. You can be sure nothing here matters half as much as they think it matters.
It would matter if people were more concerned with doing right by the poor than with avoiding charges of racism.
But they aren’t so it doesn’t.
Affirmative Action works both ways. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will get places in Hell while a pair of white people get wait listed.
It certainly doesn’t matter to the regents. They feel free to ignore the law if it gets in the way of their social engineering schemes.
My answer to that is to dramatically increase the number of slots available to all poor people at places like UCLA. Affirmative action for African-Americans is the right thing. So is affirmative action for poor people in general.
Interestingly enough, the white and relatively poor population of Appalachia already gets affirmative action consideration from institutions like Yale, Harvard, and the University of Chicago.
Don’t hear many complaints about that though.
But I’m sure it doesn’t have anything to do with race.
Translation: “It’s okay to treat people differently on the basis of race, just as long as they aren’t white.”
“Affirmative action for African-Americans is the right thing.”…No, it isn’t. That was easy.
Newsflash, Ric. The poor population of Appalachia (despite the appal lodged in there) isn’t disproportionately white. Also, neither the Bronx nor Boston is inside the Beltway.
Then there’s the issue of the law.
Answer:
After listening to the disgraceful Harry Reid today, and after hearing my own Senator, Chris Dodd(CT – DemoBrownshirt) say that he will ignore a law because he doesn’t like it, I would have to say that the answer to your question is, that we who actually know what the Constitution says, are F**ked.
Good answer…
The law?! Pshaw!! What is that when you are a possessor of the Truth?
Well I am living proof that the Appalachian Race is in sore need of some higher education, can’t argue with that.
Disparate impact, anyone?
Right. That’s why you don’t hear many complaints about it. There’s no racial preference involved.
I think Perfessor Cancer might be catching on.
Junk mail goes into slots, weenie boy, not people. Maybe you meant sluts instead of slots, and if that’s the case then I, too, see an array of benefits from increasing the number of UCLA sluts made available poor people, and by all poor people I mean all disabled and ederly, all the underemployed and uneducated, all immigrants no matter of legal status, damnit, all means all in my book.
Why should sluts disciminate just because she goes to UCLA? It goes against the very nature of slutonomy. Free and and easy should be free and easy for all, Comrads.
Brilliant. UCLA illegally abuses the power it already has, so the perfesser’s solution is…give them more power!! Rob from Peter (be it a dollar or an admission letter) to pay Paul and Paul’s yours on election day.
Speaking of latter-day aints…*
I have a dream!
“Affirmative action for African-Americans is the right thing.”
So you’re a racist.
Thers on is on the Hamster’s tit, now? How appropriate is that.
Laws? We don’t need no steenkin’ laws. happyfeet – Don’t you find yourself scratching your head in amazement sometimes? It seems as though laws are at best, subjective, in CA. Public initiative banning same sex marriage? Some Mayor thinks he has more power than the citizens of the State, and blatantly ignores it, and strangely, the media does stories about the happy couples, rather than a public official fucking ignoring the law. Why would the Regents be any different?
Prof. Idiot just put up 2 posts about Clarence Thomas. That is 10 minutes of my life that I will never recover, and I am dummer for having read that.
You can be fairly sure there will be plenty of openings for junior college transfers by the time sophomore year rolls around.
Hey Prof Cancer, is there anything in the statist goody bag for uninsured white middle-agers who are self employed at the low end of the pay scale while trying to pay for expensive treatments of fatal illnesses?
Why the fuck not? Answer the goddamn question, Einstein.
Well, I’m not going to sully my imagination by wandering around reading any more of Caric’s blather than needed, but let me guess: he dresses down Thomas for not being authentically black, and insufficiently racist (i.e. opposing preferences based on race)?
Doesn’t really matter, we know from what he’s said here that he’s the worst sort of bigot – the kind of bigot that thinks he’s doing you a favor.
Not unlike the antebellum defenders of the South’s “peculiar institution” who often observed that if they weren’t enslaved in America they’d just get eaten by “their own people” back in Africa.
Good ol’ Prof. Caricature — he knows not the heritage of his ideas, nor does he care.
Merovign – Precisely. A self loathing self pitying man who is angry because he was a pawn in the desegregation process.
“Interestingly enough, the white and relatively poor population of Appalachia already gets affirmative action consideration from institutions like Yale, Harvard, and the University of Chicago.
Don’t hear many complaints about that though.
But I’m sure it doesn’t have anything to do with race.”
If it’s race-based, we all disagree with it. I do, however, guarantee you that there’a a B grade movie out there with some title like “Harvard Hillbilly”, and I bet you it’s hilariously off the wall.
Caric – I know for a fact that you will not actually engage in reasoned discourse, so this is pointless. But, can you not imagine the possibility that if we accept your statement about affirmative action for Appalachia, that it could be due to their disproportionately lower quality schools, and the relative poverty of that part of the country? Interesting that all of these kinds of areas tend to be heavily Democratic.
That dog won’t hunt. Shoot it.